34 research outputs found

    Effectiveness of method improvements to reduce variability of brood termination rate in honey bee brood studies under semi-field conditions

    Get PDF
    Quantitative assessments of adverse effects of plant protection products on honey bee brood (Apis mellifera L.) may be carried out according to the methods given by the OECD Guidance Document No. 75 (2007). In recent years a number of studies displayed a strong variability in brood termination rates, a key endpoint. Due to these variances no definite conclusions regarding potential brood effects were possible, and the studies needed to be repeated. Due to this, attempts to improve the methodology were initiated by the Working Group ‘Honey bee brood' of the German AG Bienenschutz. In 2011, honey bee brood studies adapted to these identified possible improvements resulted in better results compared to historical data. Based on the analysed results, the working group recommends to improve the method by using bigger colonies with more brood, using 4 instead of 3 replicates for better interpretation of data, starting the study early in the season, avoiding major modifications of the colonies shortly before application and using larger tunnels with effective crop areas preferably > 80 m². To carry out quicker brood cell assessments to reduce stress for the colonies, it is recommended to use digital brood assessment, which allows marking a higher number of cells (e.g. 200 to 400 cells)

    Biased Signaling of CCL21 and CCL19 Does Not Rely on N-Terminal Differences, but Markedly on the Chemokine Core Domains and Extracellular Loop 2 of CCR7

    Get PDF
    Chemokine receptors play important roles in the immune system and are linked to several human diseases. Targeting chemokine receptors have so far shown very little success owing to, to some extent, the promiscuity of the immune system and the high degree of biased signaling within it. CCR7 and its two endogenous ligands display biased signaling and here we investigate the differences between the two ligands, CCL21 and CCL19, with respect to their biased activation of CCR7. We use bystander bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) based signaling assays and Transwell migration assays to determine (A) how swapping of domains between the two ligands affect their signaling patterns and (B) how receptor mutagenesis impacts signaling. Using chimeric ligands we find that the chemokine core domains are central for determining signaling outcome as the lack of β-arrestin-2 recruitment displayed by CCL21 is linked to its core domain and not N-terminus. Through a mutagenesis screen, we identify the extracellular domains of CCR7 to be important for both ligands and show that the two chemokines interact differentially with extracellular loop 2 (ECL-2). By using in silico modeling, we propose a link between ECL-2 interaction and CCR7 signal transduction. Our mutagenesis study also suggests a lysine in the top of TM3, K1303.26, to be important for G protein signaling, but not β-arrestin-2 recruitment. Taken together, the bias in CCR7 between CCL19 and CCL21 relies on the chemokine core domains, where interactions with ECL-2 seem particularly important. Moreover, TM3 selectively regulates G protein signaling as found for other chemokine receptors.publishe

    Molecular dynamics-guided discovery of an ago-allosteric modulator for GPR40/FFAR1

    Get PDF
    The long-chain fatty acid receptor FFAR1/GPR40 binds agonists in both an interhelical site between the extracellular segments of transmembrane helix (TM)-III and TM-IV and a lipid-exposed groove between the intracellular segments of these helices. Molecular dynamics simulations of FFAR1 with agonist removed demonstrated a major rearrangement of the polar and charged anchor point residues for the carboxylic acid moiety of the agonist in the interhelical site, which was associated with closure of a neighboring, solvent-exposed pocket between the extracellular poles of TM-I, TM-II, and TM-VII. A synthetic compound designed to bind in this pocket, and thereby prevent its closure, was identified through structure-based virtual screening and shown to function both as an agonist and as an allosteric modulator of receptor activation. This discovery of an allosteric agonist for a previously unexploited, dynamic pocket in FFAR1 demonstrates both the power of including molecular dynamics in the drug discovery process and that this specific, clinically proven, but difficult, antidiabetes target can be addressed by chemotypes different from existing ligands

    Higher TIER bumble bees and solitary bees recommendations for a semi-field experimental design

    Get PDF
    The publication of the proposed EFSA risk assessment guidance document of plant protection products for pollinators highlighted that there are no study designs for non-Apis pollinators available. Since no official guidelines exist for semi-field testing at present, protocols were proposed by the ICPPR non-Apis working group and two years of ring-testing were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to develop a general test set-up. The ringtest design was based on the draft EFSA guidance document, OEPP/EPPO Guideline No. 170 and results of discussions regarding testing solitary bees and bumble bees during the meetings of the ICPPR non-Apis workgroup. Ring-tests were conducted with two different test organisms, one representative of a social bumble bee species (Bombus terrestris L; Hymenoptera, Apidae) and one representative of a solitary bee species (Osmia bicornis L; Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). The species are common species in Europe, commercially available and widely used for pollination services. Several laboratories participated in the higher-tier ring tests. 15 semi-field tests were conducted with bumble bees and 16 semi-field tests were done with solitary bees in 2016 and 2017. Two treatment groups were always included in the ringtests: an untreated control (water treated) and the treatment with dimethoate as a toxic reference item (optional other i.e. brood-affecting substances fenoxycarb or diflubenzuron). The toxic reference items were chosen based on their mode of action and long term experience in honey bee testing. A summary of the ringtest results will be given and the recommendations for the two semi-field test designs will be presented.The publication of the proposed EFSA risk assessment guidance document of plant protection products for pollinators highlighted that there are no study designs for non-Apis pollinators available. Since no official guidelines exist for semi-field testing at present, protocols were proposed by the ICPPR non-Apis working group and two years of ring-testing were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to develop a general test set-up. The ringtest design was based on the draft EFSA guidance document, OEPP/EPPO Guideline No. 170 and results of discussions regarding testing solitary bees and bumble bees during the meetings of the ICPPR non-Apis workgroup. Ring-tests were conducted with two different test organisms, one representative of a social bumble bee species (Bombus terrestris L; Hymenoptera, Apidae) and one representative of a solitary bee species (Osmia bicornis L; Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). The species are common species in Europe, commercially available and widely used for pollination services. Several laboratories participated in the higher-tier ring tests. 15 semi-field tests were conducted with bumble bees and 16 semi-field tests were done with solitary bees in 2016 and 2017. Two treatment groups were always included in the ringtests: an untreated control (water treated) and the treatment with dimethoate as a toxic reference item (optional other i.e. brood-affecting substances fenoxycarb or diflubenzuron). The toxic reference items were chosen based on their mode of action and long term experience in honey bee testing. A summary of the ringtest results will be given and the recommendations for the two semi-field test designs will be presented

    Improving virtual screening of G protein-coupled receptors via ligand-directed modeling

    Get PDF
    G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) play crucial roles in cell physiology and pathophysiology. There is increasing interest in using structural information for virtual screening (VS) of libraries and for structure-based drug design to identify novel agonist or antagonist leads. However, the sparse availability of experimentally determined GPCR/ligand complex structures with diverse ligands impedes the application of structure-based drug design (SBDD) programs directed to identifying new molecules with a select pharmacology. In this study, we apply ligand-directed modeling (LDM) to available GPCR X-ray structures to improve VS performance and selectivity towards molecules of specific pharmacological profile. The described method refines a GPCR binding pocket conformation using a single known ligand for that GPCR. The LDM method is a computationally efficient, iterative workflow consisting of protein sampling and ligand docking. We developed an extensive benchmark comparing LDM-refined binding pockets to GPCR X-ray crystal structures across seven different GPCRs bound to a range of ligands of different chemotypes and pharmacological profiles. LDM-refined models showed improvement in VS performance over origin X-ray crystal structures in 21 out of 24 cases. In all cases, the LDM-refined models had superior performance in enriching for the chemotype of the refinement ligand. This likely contributes to the LDM success in all cases of inhibitor-bound to agonist-bound binding pocket refinement, a key task for GPCR SBDD programs. Indeed, agonist ligands are required for a plethora of GPCRs for therapeutic intervention, however GPCR X-ray structures are mostly restricted to their inactive inhibitor-bound state
    corecore